Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Even More Surveillance Cameras For England

Posted by timothy on from the well-lookie-lookie dept.

An unidentified reader writes that a "new type of camera to allow the police to monitor from a laptop has been developed. Cheaper, and with G3 about to come in, faster data transmission," and points to this story in the UK Sunday Times. Unnamed experts in that story say that in Britain "an individual is already likely to be filmed by up to 300 cameras a day."

4 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. A small rebuttal by w00ly_mammoth · · Score: 5

    The only negative consequence I can think of is that it's going to increase the price of dope... :(



    That's the only negative thing you can think of?

    Here, let me add a few more...

    1) If you are willing to let the cops film you, you are giving up your civil rights to walk around freely without someone monitoring you. This is possibly the very definition of freedom. If you give that up, you don't have a lot left...

    2) Police states DO have lower rates of crime. Nobody disputes that. Saudi Arabia and Singapore monitor practically everything you do, and there's almost no crime. There's almost no innovation, art, or human expression of any kind either. If you want that kind of society, you're welcome to it.

    3) Software is a global market. People don't realise it, but $$$ aren't the only thing that programmers, scientists and engineers look at. I can work in Singapore any time I want to, but I don't ever want to go back there because the only thing I remember is clean streets and deadly dull govt. propaganda on TV. The only free expression I encountered was hastily written on restroom walls.

    4) You can't have the govt. surgically monitor the "bad guys" and let the "good guys" run around happily inventing things.

    5) Britain already has a really bad image - an inbred monarchy, a racist class driven society, slow technology, foot-and-mouth-disease, and mad cow disease. Trust me, surveillance cameras aren't going to make anyone want to go there.

    6) If the cops monitor you, who monitors the cops? Abuse is inevitable.

    Britain is already leading the charge towards a monitored society, and satisfying bureaucratic deadweights. In contrast, libertarian places such as California are attracting all the talent. It's your choice.

    w/m

    1. Re:A small rebuttal by joss · · Score: 5

      > In contrast, libertarian places such as California are attracting all the talent.

      You had me up to there, I hate cameras too, but you don't really know what you're talking about. What the hell is libertarian about Ca ? I lived in Ca for 5 years, the weather was great and people were friendly (but vacant, especially in SoCal) but:

      You can get arrested for walking down the street drinking a can of beer.

      You can get arrested for crossing the street.

      You can get arrested for going to the beach at night.

      I came close to getting done on all three of these.

      One more thing - there are police *EVERYWHERE*. It is enormously striking to a brit how overpoliced Ca is. I don't like cameras but I prefer them to a bunch of neanderthal ex-high school bullies with guns cruising around looking for somewhere to throw their weight around. The police in UK are wonderful in comparison.

      Another striking thing is how racially segregated life is. Black people are mostly confined to ghettos or fast food counters, you hardly ever meet any socially. It's hard to quantify, but CA *feels* more racist to me, it seems like race is just less of an issue here.

      The proportion of the population kept in jail at any time is a huge in CA. There is no more meaningful judge of freedom than to check how many people are locked up. England is bad by European standards, but CA is in a different league.

      In short: England may suck, but lose the complacancy.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  2. CCTV, Mark Thomas and the Data Protection Act by Cabby · · Score: 5

    Whatever your take on CCTV and the whole privacy issue, Mark Thomas' (British comic, bit like Michael Moore for all you State-side folks) recent take on the issue was interesting.
    Seems CCTV footage is now covered by the UK Data Protection Act, which means that, for a nominal fee (ten pounds in most cases) the owners/operators of the cameras have to release any footage they might have of you.

    Mark's taken this to the obvious conclusion by hosting a competition for the most creative short film captured via CCTV and obtained via the DPA. Details here.

    As to whether CCTV is a good thing or not, I'm still sitting on the fence on the issue I must admit. Key point seems to be how the use/availability of any captured film is regulated and policed, but you're probably looking at cases on a site by site basis, which naturally makes it very hard to administrate.

  3. Paranoia by imipak · · Score: 5
    I live here. We're getting CCTV over the entire estate; the closest camera is about twenty yards from my front door. I'm actually quite pleased about this. A friend was recently killed in a hit-and-run road accident - it looks likely that the guilty party will get caught eventually, but with CCTV it'd be as simple as reading off the license plate and going to the perp's house to make arrests.

    The other reason I'm in favour is that Brixton (in South London) has a bad (but deserved) reputation for aggro between the police and the local black population, going back beyond the riots in 1981 (that's the London police's site, by the way - more realistic stuff here.) With CCTV, allegations of brutality can be more easily verified and rascist / thuggish cops thrown in jail, where they belong.

    The only negative consequence I can think of is that it's going to increase the price of dope... :(
    --
    If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles